The current favoured geological paradigm, Plate Tectonics, has many detractors and their writings can be found in print and/or online in publications such as the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal (1). From works published in the NCGT Journal and others, it is clear that since its inception not all geologists accepted the new Plate Tectonics paradigm, some went down the path of retaining the Plate Tectonic notion of continental ‘fits’ and produced Expanding Earth models whilst other geologists produced entirely different models altogether.For the supporters of Plate Tectonics however, one question that has remained unanswered is why Plate Tectonics is unique to the Earth. No other terrestrial planet or natural satellites show any evidence of the alleged mobile plates.

Most terrestrial bodies have intensely cratered surfaces, of the inner planets only Venus and Earth display a distinct lack of craters. Indeed, Venus a planet only slightly smaller than Earth, our so-called ‘twin’ is one that would be most likely to exhibit Plate Tectonics yet shows no signs of any plates. Planetary geologists explain this evidence, that something may be wrong with our current understanding, away with ad hoc suggestions that usually involves Venus having a thicker crust or lacking convection in the mantle but with no seismological measurements taken on Venus this is complete guesswork.

The exploration of the solar system over the last 50 years has revealed a huge amount of information about the individual planets and their satellites but none of the terrestrial planets or satellites exhibit anywhere near the amount of geological activity evident on the Earth.

From this exploration we now know that the planets and their satellites are immersed in an electrified plasma and it is from this perspective that we should seek a cause of planetary geological activity.

In 1972 Ralph Juergens suggested that the Sun was powered by means of an electric discharge, in that paper Juergens described some of the features of plasmas:

‘Up to this point I have neglected to mention two most important facts about space-charge sheaths and plasmas:

‘1. An isolated body whose alien potential is not continually renewed by means of electric currents will quickly acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma, and its sheath will disappear; and‘2. A plasma does not necessarily possess an intrinsic electric potential. Where plasmas form in electrical discharges, however--and this is the connection in which Langmuir studied them--they do acquire non-zero potentials.

‘These are clearly matters of immense importance. I will return to them later.

‘For now, we can say that in a solar system pervaded by plasma, each charged planet with a potential unlike that of the local plasma must have its electric field bound up in a space-charge sheath of limited volume. When no orbital conflict exists, the system operates serenely under the direction of forces accounted for in conventional celestial mechanics.’(2)

What Juergens called ‘space-charge sheaths’ are popularly known as magnetospheres and of the terrestrial bodies immersed in the solar plasma only two have intrinsic magnetospheres, Mercury and the Earth.

The innermost planet Mercury has a global dipolar magnetic field nearly aligned with the planet's rotational axis about 1.1% the strength of Earth's. Measurements from the MESSENGER spacecraft indicate that the field is offset north of the planet’s centre by 300miles, when compared to measurements taken by Mariner 10 in 1975 the field is 7% weaker today. MESSENGER also found areas of a stronger remnant magnetic field of opposite polarity to the direction of today’s field in Mercury’s northern plains.

Today’s field is somewhat of a puzzle, Mercury’s small size and slow 59-day-long rotation provide a challenge for the popular dynamo model for the generation of planetary magnetic fields and conventionally the planet has had plenty of time to cool down.

Venus has no intrinsic magnetosphere but does interact with the solar wind. A recent report of on-going volcanic activity on Venus is inconclusive as the Venus Express spacecraft only observed a number of ‘hotspots’ in a rift system that varied in intensity over a period of (Earth)days. (3)

Both the Moon and Mars have no intrinsic magnetospheres but both bodies do exhibit patches of what is called crustal or remnant magnetism. Like Mercury this crustal magnetism is mainly found in the heavily cratered highlands. (4)

From these observations and to paraphrase Juergens we can infer that the Moon, Mars and Venus have acquired the potential of the surrounding plasma and their sheaths have disappeared; remnant magnetism on the Moon, Mars and Mercury may be due to electrical scarring events at some time in the past.

These observations would also indicate that Mercury and the Earth have not acquired the potential of the surrounding plasma, are Mercury and the Earth recent arrivals in their current orbits, perhaps after having gained additional charge following a close encounter with bodies unknown?

If Mercury is still adjusting to its solar environment does it show any signs of activity today? Images from the MESSENGER spacecraft revealed what planetary geologists call ‘hollows’ on the surface and attributed their formation to ‘something sublimating’. Now, I suggest a more likely explanation is that ‘hollows’ are a formed by spark discharge or electric discharge machining. A similar more energetic process has been suggested as a cause of the ‘volcanoes’ on Jupiter’s moon Io. (5) Given that Mercury lacks any atmosphere to speak of and has an intrinsic but weakening magnetic field, geological activity is now at a minimum- a trickle discharge is all that remains to drive Mercurian tectonics. (6)

The Earth however does have a substantial atmosphere and magnetic field, is far more geologically active and has yet to ‘acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma’.

What drives the Earth’s magnetic field? The current mainstream explanation involves a dynamo effect generated in the Earth’s core. Seismic studies have led geologists to believe that the outer core is a conducting fluid (liquid nickel/iron) whilst the inner core is believed to be solid iron. The motion of the inner and outer cores generates an electric current which in turn generates a magnetic field. As simple as this sounds there are problems however, Joseph Cater explains: ‘Scientists are somewhat vague as to how a magnetic field could extend 2,000 miles beyond an electric current. It requires a very powerful current to produce even relatively weak magnetic effects a very short distance above the flow. The electrical resistance of iron, at the alleged temperatures of the core, would be staggering. A steady flow of electricity requires constant potential differences. How are such potential differences produced and maintained in this hypothetical core?

‘The magnitude, width, and depth of such currents would have to be unbelievable to extend the magnetic field even a small fraction of the distance required, and the EMF [electromotive force] required to produce it would be even more incredible. Where could such an EMF come from? So far, scientists seem reluctant to explain this, especially since these currents are confined to a ball and would therefore follow closed paths.’(7)

For a planet to have a magnetic field a dynamo is not necessary. Juergens reminds us that in the opinion of Velikovsky: ‘the Earth and the other planets, as electrically charged bodies, create their proper magnetic fields by their rotation…Let us assume, with Velikovsky, that the Earth carries a significant electric charge. Let us further assume, as suggested elsewhere, that this charge is actively imposed on our planet by the demands of an electrified cosmic environment.’(8)

The Earth as a rotating charged body will generate a magnetic field indistinguishable from the hypothetical dynamo, this field is ‘actively imposed’ and will remain active until the Earth ‘acquire(s) the potential of the surrounding plasma’. (2, 8)

Do we have any evidence that the Earth is adjusting to its electrical environment? Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements taken between 1835 and 1965 revealed that Earth’s magnetic field was decaying at a rate of 5% per century. (9) Other researchers estimate that the field will disappear altogether in just 2000 years. (10) This would seem to indicate that the Earth is discharging to meet the electrical demands of its environment, if so how is this process driving global tectonics?

The Earth is a hollow electret; (11) this may seem a ludicrous suggestion, after all we have plenty of seismic data that tells us otherwise but a degree of caution is needed when interpreting that data. The researcher and author Jan Lamprecht has devised a model of the Earth’s interior which is consistent with known seismic data with one important difference- the Earth is hollow. (12) In Lamprecht’s model a cavity, about the size of the currently hypothesized inner core, exists at the centre of the Earth. How might such a cavity form?

The conventional account of the formation of the Earth, through accretion, would rule out a hollow planet, as planets are assumed to be assembled slowly piece by piece. However, it has been suggested that if terrestrial bodies are formed in an electric discharge then the bodies may very well be hollow. (13)

In link No. 13, researcher and author Peter Mungo Jupp asks: ’How homogenous is the earth? Is it moulded within by strict boundaries or is it perhaps like the illustration of the internals of a classic thunderegg with a 3D star shaped interior? Plasma pioneers, such as C.J Ransom, recreated spherical Martian rock blueberries in the lab with electrical discharge techniques. Were thundereggs created by similar means? And if electrical effects are scalable could our larger earth body perhaps replicate a thunderegg formation with its gaseous enclosures and spiky outreaches that may, perhaps, resemble the jets of a comet?’

In this image of a sliced thunderegg (14) we see the cavity is not smooth as in Lamprecht’s model but has projections that appear to reach the inside edge of the thunderegg, in this image (15) the projection are more pronounced and form a regular pentagram or five-pointed star pattern. For a more spherical body such as the Earth we could imagine the cavity to take on the appearance of a great icosidodecahedron. (16)

Could it be that what geologists refer to as spreading centres (mid-ocean ridges) and subduction zones are actually surface puncturing fractures related to deep polyhedral structures within the Earth and that these fracture lines provide ‘discharge channels’ for the transmission of electric charge from the Earth to its ‘electrified cosmic environment?’

Our understanding of the Earth’s interior is very limited and what we do know came as a surprise to geologists. Findings from the Kola Superdeep Borehole near Murmansk, Russia which reached a depth of 40,220 feet (7.6 miles) and the super-deep borehole at Oberpfälz, Germany which reached a depth of 29,860 feet (5.6 miles) were not anticipated.

At the Kola hole the Soviet Minister of Geology stated, ‘with increasing depth in the Kola hole, the expected increase in rock densities was therefore not recorded. Neither was any increase in the speed of seismic waves nor any other changes in the physical properties of the rocks detected. Thus the traditional idea that geological data obtained from the surface can be directly correlated with geological materials in the deep crust must be re-examined.'

Deep drilling also revealed the presence of hydrogen, helium, methane, and other gases. Rock density failed to meet expectations instead strongly mineralized water was found circulating through fractures at pressures of more than 3000 bar. At the Oberpfälz hole hot fluids in open fractures at a depth of 11,150 feet (2.1 miles) were found. The brine was rich in potassium and twice as salty as ocean water. Temperatures recorded in super-deep boreholes came as a surprise. Temperature was found to increase with depth far more rapidly than predicted. In the Kola borehole, at 32,810 feet (6.2 miles) deep the temperature was 180°C not the expected 100°C. Overall, the rate of temperature increase rose from 11° to 24°per 3,281 feet, down to a depth of nearly 22,970 feet (4.3 miles) and then started to decline. (17)

Deep drilling suggests that overall the Earth is far more porous than currently understood. Indeed, Thomas Gold in his Deep Earth Gas theory proposed that helium and various hydrocarbons well up from great depths through pores and channels in the mantle and crust. (18) Not only a variety of gases originate at great depth but water also appears to originate from great depths as well. (19)

Charge carrying material drifting up from depth takes the form of liquids, gases and nearer the surface, molten rock. At the surface charge transfer takes the form of volcanic activity. To explain the observed electrical activity associated with volcanic activity it is now postulated that silica, an ingredient of magma is highly charged before it even enters the atmosphere. (20, 21) Basalt, an igneous rock, covers large areas of the Earth’s surface, most of the ocean basins are covered in basalt. Results from the Deep Sea Drilling Project indicate that the basaltic ‘basement’ layer had been subjected to sub-aerial weathering, meaning oceanic basalts formed in terrestrial or shallow sea conditions. (22) If the outflows of basalt occurred during a time of global upheaval then it is likely that electrical discharges left their mark before the crust collapsed, forming the deep ocean basins. Interestingly, most basalts on the ocean floor are tholeiitic basalts which are relatively rich in silica which as was noted earlier is now regarded as being highly charged. Perhaps, the expansive outflow of basalt was triggered by a change in Earth’s gravity as a result of its new electrical environment. (23) The process, still continues today but at a reduced pace, as the demands of the environment, on the Earth, diminish.

Earthquake activity is another form of charge transfer. Most earthquakes occur no deeper that 15.5 miles, however, nearly one third occur at depths greater than 43.5 miles with the deepest reaching 435 miles. Conventionally, earthquakes are said to occur at ‘plate boundaries’ but many are recorded far from the nearest plate boundary and the most violent can leave the Earth ‘ringing like a bell’. (24)

Rather than lateral movement earthquakes indicate vertical movement, geomorphologist Lester King wrote: ‘So the fundamental tectonic mechanisms of global geology are vertical, up or down and the normal and most general tectonic structures in the crust are also vertically disposed…But one must bear in mind that every part of the globe- on the continents or in the ocean basins- provides direct geological evidence that formerly it stood at different levels, up or down…’ (25)

It would appear then, that entire sections of the Earth’s crust have collapsed mainly along fracture lines related to structures deeper within the Earth, as the main collapse ensued magma, saline water, hydrocarbons and other gases were expelled in great quantities, this activity was linked to the charge transfer process, moreover, most geologists agree that mountain formation took place fairly recently, conventionally placed in the Pliocene – Pleistocene Epochs, uplift in certain parts of the crust could well have been a consequence of the complete collapse of the crust in other areas.

If charge is being conducted today through these discharge channels/ fracture lines then we would expect to find accounts in the literature of unusual atmospheric phenomena associated with earthquake activity, recorded phenomena include: bulging of the Earth’s surface, changing well water levels, ground-hugging fog, low frequency electromagnetic emission, earthquake lights from ridges and mountain tops, magnetic field anomalies up to 0.5% of the Earth’s dipole field, temperature anomalies by several degrees over wide areas as seen in satellite images, changes in the plasma density of the ionosphere, strange animal behaviour and unusual cloud formations.

Temperature rises have been recorded before earthquake activity and it is speculated that this is due to the movement of charge within the crust. New Scientist magazine reported that: ‘Geophysicists Guangmeng Guo and Bin Wang of Nanyang Normal University in Henan, China, noticed a gap in the clouds in satellite images from December 2004 that precisely matched the location of the main fault in southern Iran. It stretched for hundreds of kilometres, was visible for several hours and remained in the same place, although the clouds around it were moving. At the same time, thermal images of the ground showed that the temperature was higher along the fault. Sixty-nine days later, on 22 February 2005, an earthquake of magnitude 6.4 hit the area, killing more than 600 people.’(26)

As the Earth has yet to reach the potential of the surrounding plasma it is still subject to fluctuations in the Sun’s output via a more direct electrical link, this link can also influence earthquake activity. (27)

We have seen that it is becoming increasingly recognised that both volcanic and earthquake activity are both accompanied with electrical activity. Rather than being secondary phenomena I suggest that electrical activity, in the form of charge transfer, is the driver of global tectonics. A vast reservoir of chemical elements at the centre of the Earth is impelled to drift towards the surface, mainly through deep ancient structures and more recent fracture lines, as part of the discharge.

Having left the body of the Earth, charge accumulates in the oceans and atmosphere- here it drives a wide variety of atmospheric phenomena. Over the oceans we find electrified events ranging from hurricanes to St. Elmo’s fire on the continents we find a similar range from tornadoes to lightning. However, the discharge doesn’t end in the atmosphere as Wal Thornhill and David Talbott explain: ‘If the Earth is continually interacting with an external electric field, the terrestrial lightning surely involves something more than wind-driven charge separation in storm clouds in a circuit restricted to the lower atmosphere. In recent years it has been found that lightning storms are often accompanied by strange flashes, playfully called elves, sprites, and gnomes, radiating into space high above the clouds… If the Earth is a charged body connected to the Sun’s electric field, then the storm, the lightning and the sprites will be manifestations of a single phenomenon…Lightning is the spark of a celestial current as it connects to the Earth.’(28)

To summarise; both the Earth and Mercury have yet to reach to potential of their respective plasma environments. The Moon, Venus and Mars all appear to be at electrical equilibrium with their plasma environments and display no intrinsic magnetic fields or magnetospheres and appear in comparison to the Earth, geologically inactive. The magnetic fields of the Earth and Mercury are showing signs of steady decay. Deep within the Earth a cavity exists from which water and other volatiles migrate to the surface- this migration is part of a global discharge that powers tectonic activity- the like of which is not seen on any other planet.

The Earth will remain a geologically active planet until such a time that it meets ‘the potential of the surrounding plasma’ then, to quote Velikovsky: ‘And the Earth would go on shuddering for centuries, slowly quieting down, and as time passed one after another the volcanoes would burn themselves out.’ (29)

Large areas of the continents are remarkably flat; this is somewhat of a problem to geomorphologists as researcher Michael Oard explains: ‘…the uniformitarian paradigm has great difficulty explaining the origin of landforms. One of these landforms, most of which were once much larger, is the planation surface. Planation surfaces are common and worldwide. They are not forming today but are being destroyed.’ (my emphasis)

But just what is a planation surface? Oard continues: ‘An erosion surface is a rolling surface with slight relief. A planation surface is generally considered a flat to nearly flat erosion surface. Some planation surfaces are extraordinarily flat. The definition includes erosion by water because many surficial erosion and planation surfaces are capped by a veneer of generally rounded rocks—rounded by the action of water…Planation surfaces of many sizes, usually carpeted by cobbles and boulders, are common on all the continents.’

The fact that planation surfaces exist today is rather confusing as some planation surfaces are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old; however, two geomorphologists, Ollier and Pain, concluded that planation surfaces must have formed recently- late Cainozoic- and must have been much larger than today. The renowned geomorphologist Lester King reached a similar conclusion. As I have mention before King also concluded: ‘So the fundamental tectonic mechanisms of global geology are vertical, up or down: and the normal and most general tectonic structures in the crust are also vertically disposed … But one must bear in mind that every part of the globe—on the continents or in the ocean basins—provides direct geological evidence that formerly it stood at different levels, up or down, and that it is subject in situ to vertical displacements.’ (1)

This is the conclusion of researchers in the field, incredibly large areas of the Earth’s surface have (geologically) recently experienced huge vertical movements forming planation surfaces, mountains and basins. Why recently? As Michael Oard points out: ‘Some planation surfaces are dated to well over 100 million years old, despite the fact that current erosion rates should have destroyed the surface within a few million years at most. Physical evidence of erosion indicates the uniformitarian dates are highly inflated.’ (2)

But just how inflated are uniformitarian dates? Given the known rates of erosion on Earth today and the estimated age of the continents, the continents should have eroded to sea-level long ago, Twidale and Campbell concluded: ‘However, in all cases, assuming no further major uplift or lowering of sea-level, it has been estimated that a small area like New Zealand, although mountainous, would be base-levelled [reduced to sea level] in about 11 million years. Larger land areas, like the continental United States, sub-Saharan Africa, peninsular India or Australia, would be reduced to base-level in 33 million years or so.’ (3)

Current geomorphological explanations for the continued existence of planation surfaces fall short. Michael Oard being a creationist attributes the existence of planation surfaces to the Biblical Flood, the continents being levelled during this event. Might planation surfaces have an explanation other than that offered by Oard and more along the lines of that suggested by King? And what about the age paradox of supposedly old landforms appearing young- can that issue be resolved?

Mountains (i)

Geomorphologist Cliff D. Ollier has concluded: ‘Mountains result from uplift of former plains to make plateaus, which are dissected to various degrees. There are no ‘fold mountains’. When folded rocks underlie mountains the folding pre-dates planation and uplift.’ And: ‘Mountains occur not only on folded rocks, but on horizontal rocks, granite, and lava flows. Ollier and Pain (2000) assembled evidence that most mountains are the products of uplift of a plain to form a plateau, which may or may not be extensively dissected…This uplift of mountains appears to be a global phenomenon. It affects so-called Alpine mountains, mountains on passive continental margins, and those in deep continental interiors. The period of uplift is known as the Neotectonic Period.’ Commenting on the mountains of Tibet Ollier notes: ‘According to Gao (1998) there was one vast plateau over much of Asia, which has been divided by normal faults into several great plateaus…’ (4)

Mountain ranges are not hundreds of millions of years old, like existing planation surfaces they have formed recently and the process of vertical displacement was independent of the make-up of the mountain. Recall that it is believed that planation surfaces were once much larger, now we have a reoccurring theme- plateaus followed by mountains formed from originally much larger flat surfaces and all formed recently. Is it possible that the surface of the Earth was radically different prior to a ‘recent’ event that has fragmented an originally much larger flat surface, and would any evidence remain of this former surface?

Mars

A curious topographical feature of the planet Mars is a noticeable hemispheric dichotomy. (5, 6) ‘The so-called hemispheric dichotomy was first observed by NASA's Viking missions to Mars in the 1970s. The Viking spacecraft revealed that the two halves of the planet have a very different topographical appearance, with relatively young, low-lying plains in the north and relatively old, cratered highlands in the south.’ As usual the ubiquitous massive impact in the distant past is proposed to ‘explain’ this curious feature. (7) This is just a fudge; planetary scientists don’t really have an explanation for the hemispheric differences on Mars. Provided that planetoid, asteroid and meteorite impacts happen in the distant past then they are used to ‘explain’ just about every feature of the solar system. Could it be that the Martian hemispheric dichotomy is simply a relic from the planet’s formation? If so, do we have any other examples in the solar system?

Iapetus, Moqui Marbles and Concretions

Images returned by the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around Saturn revealed that one of the planet’s moons, Iapetus, possessed a curious topographical feature that was termed a ‘ridge’ that coincided almost exactly with the geographic equator. (8) Conventionally, the origin of the ridge system is unexplained, a recent paper by Erika J. Lopez Garcia et al. favoured an exogenic origin but could not rule out an endogenic one. (9) However, Electric Universe advocates have experimentally produced remarkable concretions that bear a striking resemblance to Iapetus. Not only that but many of the concretions are hollow, in line with the theme of this forum post. (10, 11, 12, 13)

If the terrestrial planets and satellites formed electrically then they are simply variations on a theme, just as in the links given above not all concretions, marbles, geodes and thunder-eggs look the same so we can expect the planets and satellites to exhibit different topographical properties just as we find with Mars and Iapetus. But what of the Earth, does it possess any of these electrical topographical characteristics?

Hemispheric dichotomy and a global anticline

In a series of papers published in the New Concepts in Global Tectonics journal, Dong R. Choi et al. detailed the formation of the Pacific Megabasin from a viewpoint sceptical of the mainstream Plate Tectonics paradigm. In one of those papers the authors using gravity measurements from the GRACE satellite identify what they call the Global Low Gravity Belt. In their concluding remarks the authors write: ‘…in the global gravity field a distinctive low-gravity belt is recognized around the Pacific hemisphere. It runs from Antarctica, through Australia and India, to Siberia, Canada and Brazil and forms a globe-encircling ring structure, named the Global Low-Gravity Belt. This belt forms the tectonically stable outer ring of the Great Pacific Ring Structure. It consists of: 1) the outer ring, characterized by a broad low-gravity belt, and 2) the inner ring, occupying the present circum-Pacific mobile belt. The mega-ring structure appeared in the Jurassic in association with the activation of the Western Pacific Deep Mobile Belt (Choi, 2005; Choi and Vasiliev, 2008b). In this area the magmatic activities were most active until Cretaceous to Paleogene time, and regional subsidence became most active from the Neogene to the Quaternary. This structure is one of the most outstanding, global-scale structures and affected the tectonic development of the entire globe.

‘In interpreting the deep mantle structures and in formulating geodynamic models of the Earth, this great tectonic feature cannot be ignored. The Global Low-Gravity Belt is one of such features and is very interesting from global geodynamic point of view. It forms a ring around the Pacific, and, together with the Wadati-Benioff zones and the positive gravity anomalies (mountain ring), distinguishes the Pacific from the other parts of the Earth. This confirms the idea that the Pacific is a primary old structure which reflects the division of the Earth into two hemispheres with high and low relief (continental and oceanic hemispheres). The same division is typical for other planets too (Moon and Mars).’ (14) (my emphasis)

Here we have recognition that the Earth itself displays a similar hemispheric dichotomy like that observed on Mars. The Pacific Megabasin and continents are analogous to the Martian lowlands and highlands. Not only that, this topographic feature is ‘a primary old structure’, which has probably existed since the formation of the Earth. We can now see why planation surfaces ‘were once much larger’ - they previously covered an entire hemisphere! Earth’s current ‘highland hemisphere’ is now a patchwork of continents, all that remains of a former much larger land surface that underwent in situ vertical displacements; that is why planation surfaces still exist today, for most of their existence they were hemispheric in extent and postulating different electrical, gravitational and climatic environments in the past, probably suffered very little erosion.

Further research by Choi et al. had, initially, revealed the existence of an anticlinal (15, 16) feature stretching from Siberia to the South Pacific, the South Pacific-Siberian Super Anticline (SPSSA). (17) Later, a similar anticlinal feature was identified in the Americas, the North-South American Super Anticline (NSASA). (18) From this paper we read: ‘The North-South American Super Anticline is an Archean-origin geanticline structure developed on the Earth surface. It formed in parallel with an antipodal geanticline – South Pacific-Siberian Super Anticline.’ Both of these global scale Precambrian geanticlines formed early in Earth’s history and apparently both connect in the Arctic Ocean. Remarkably, this global structure closely follows the Global Low-Gravity Belt- which itself divides the Earth into two hemispheres. Is it possible that this globe encircling anticline is a relic equatorial ridge, dating from the Earth’s formation similar to what we see on Iapetus today?

If the global anticline is a former equator then the Earth has experienced a drastic shift in its axis of rotation since its formation. Looking at Mars we see that the hemispheric dichotomy is aligned North-South whereas on Earth it is East-West, perhaps this is an indication that, at least, in the case of Mars and the Earth, only two stable rotational configurations are possible should the rotational axis be disrupted. Curiously, Choi et al. note ‘The axis of the NSASA pass through the west of Devon Island and enter the (Arctic) Ocean. There the N(orth)-S(outh) trending older rocks, Ordovician and Silurian, distribute. This trend is disrupted by overlying Devonian formations which takes an E(ast) - W(est) structural direction, harmonious with the Arctic Ocean trend.’(18)

As I have mentioned elsewhere experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault found that where a water current is present rock strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time and strata are not always a measure of chronology. With this in mind the change in structural direction of rocks in the Arctic during the ‘Devonian’ may well indicate an axial shift and following Berthault, this shift would have been rapid.

Vertical displacement of the ‘highland hemisphere’: A Mechanism

Seismic studies have revealed the existence of a ‘low velocity layer’ in the Earth’s crust at a depth of 10 to 20 kilometres. Traditionally, through theoretical modelling the cause of this layer was thought to be due to high temperatures and partial melting of crustal rocks. However, Russian scientists have been able to combine seismic data with actual findings from the Kola Superdeep Borehole. What was found was not partial melting of the rock but increased porosity of the rock plus an increase in the salinity of pore water that permeated the rock; this resulted in a layer of high electrical conductivity with a resistivity of 0.03 Ohms/ metre. The study centred on the Baltic and Ukrainian shields but: ‘The low velocity and high conductivity layers were also discovered in the middle crust in other platform regions: in the Indian and Canadian shields, in the American ancient platforms (Berdichevsky et al., 1984; Jones, 1992; Pavlenkova, 1996; Padilha et al., 2000). In the young West-European plates the correlation between the low velocity layers and the high conductivity layers is also the same as in East-European platform (Aichruth et al., 1992). Such correlation allows the conclusion that this low velocity and high electrical conductivity layer in the middle crust has a global significance.’ Not only does this layer have global significance but: ‘Several structural features are typical for the layer: a change in velocity inhomogeneity where the block structure is transformed into a subhorizontal layering, changes in the reflectivity pattern and earthquake number. These properties of the middle crust layer mean that it can be associated with a weakened zone and it suggests a rheological stratification of the crust…This suggestion is confirmed by the Kola superdeep borehole data.’(19)

This research suggests that large areas of the ‘highland hemisphere’ were structurally weak and I propose that it is these areas that subsided forming the Atlantic and Indian Oceans of today. During this process vast quantities of saline water were expelled from the aforementioned conductive layer (perhaps, compelled to do so in an exchange of charge).

Ancient continental type rocks as well as samples of dried cracked ‘Cretaceous’ mud have been recovered from large areas of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, some researchers attribute these findings to changes in sea level but equally it could mean that these oceans were either much smaller than today or non-existent.

Passive Margins, Evidence of Subsidence?

There are two types of continental margin, the Atlantic or passive margin and the Pacific or active margin. Passive margins are found only in the relic ‘highland hemisphere’ and are absent from the Pacific Ocean. (20) Moving away from a continent a typical passive margin consists of a Continental Shelf, Continental Slope and Continental Rise descending to the ocean Abyssal Plain at an average depth of 4 kilometres; with the exception of the Abyssal Plain these features are blanketed in vast quantities of sediment. Buried under the sediment fill are listric normal faults, uplifted and down-faulted blocks of the crust that give an appearance of a giant staircase rising from the ocean floor. Salt layers seem to be common at the base of these faults; this would not be unexpected, as the crust fractured, subsided and brine was released from the porous rock beneath. All in all, these structures are highly suggestive of large scale subsidence.

Conclusion

A growing understanding of Earth’s geological make-up is increasingly problematic to the various geological disciplines, including geomorphology. Geologists, even those connected with the NCGT organisation, are still wedded to a fictitious millions of years timescale. Berthault has experimentally demonstrated otherwise.

Earth may very well be much older than currently accepted theories, but its surface has recently undergone major upheavals primarily disrupting the ‘highlands’ hemisphere, fragmenting an original generally low relief surface forming plateaus and basins in the process (the formation of mountains will be considered elsewhere). Is it possible that until recently, Earth once looked like this? (21)

At the summit of Mount Everest is a layer of Ordovician Limestone which contains fossils of a variety of sea creatures such as trilobites and crinoids. Beneath this layer is a belt of metamorphic rock whilst at the base of the mountain we find granite. What are the fossilised remains of sea creatures doing at the summit of the highest mountain on Earth? (1)

We have considered the possibility that the Earth’s surface was in the past radically different than that of today. In the approach outlined previously and absent Plate Tectonics how did today’s mountain ranges form?

The Flat Earth

Geomorphologist Cliff Ollier writes: ‘Before most mountains were uplifted there was a period of tectonic stillstand or at least quietness when planation surfaces were eroded…One of the biggest obstacles to our hypothesis of widespread Plio-Pleistocene mountain building is that the period of time available for the preceding planation is too short. Only further investigation can clarify this point.’ (my emphasis) (2)

Given the global extent of sedimentary deposits we can surmise that: ‘The topography of the submerged continents must have been very subdued because the layers deposited over the flooded landscape generally show extremely high lateral continuity and flat basal contacts. In some cases, even thin beds only a few centimetres thick can be followed laterally for tens of kilometres.’ (my emphasis) (3)

I have posited the existence of a former global hemispheric sized continental surface- a relic of Earth’s formation- that had formerly existed for aeons largely unchanged. This removes the ‘one of the biggest obstacles’, the time available for planation. Billions of years ‘of tectonic stillstand or at least quietness’ were available, not only that but the topographic relief of this surface was largely flat. There existed no deep valleys and no high mountains as we would understand today, what relief did exist probably existed at the boundary between the two hemispheric types, with the exception of the occasional shallow-sea perhaps, cutting into the continental surface; this lack of relief, however, meant continental areas were susceptible to marine transgression during any periods of instability.

Uplift

Cliff Ollier observes that: ‘Mountains result from uplift of former plains to make plateaus, which are dissected to various degrees. There are no ‘fold mountains’. When folded rocks underlie mountains the folding pre-dates planation and uplift…The age of a mountain or mountain range is then the age of plateau uplift, not the last age of folding of rock…This uplift of mountains appears to be a global phenomenon. It affects so-called Alpine mountains, mountains on passive continental margins, and those in deep continental interiors.’ (my emphasis)

Globally what do we find? From Asia: ‘As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: “...we must realise that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block. This surprising fact shows that an area of 2,500,000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.”’

‘According to Gao (1998) there was one vast plateau over much of Asia, which has been divided by normal faults into several great plateaus that may be correlated by plant and animal fossils.’ (my emphasis)

From Europe: ‘The European Alps have become a type area for ideas of mountain genesis in regions of folds and nappes. But the nappes have very little to do with the present Alpine topography. The whole region was planated in the Pliocene, and then broadly uplifted and eroded to the present spectacular topography.’ (my emphasis)

From North America: ‘In Western North America there are many uplifted blocks loosely called the Rocky Mountains…The name ‘Rocky Mountains’ is misleading, because they consist essentially of several dissected plateaus, with ‘ranges’ at the edges.’ (my emphasis)

From Japan: ‘…conventional plate tectonic explanation of Japan as an island arc created by subduction completely ignores the very obvious planation and vertical uplift.’ (my emphasis)(2)

I could go on but the pattern remains the same, regardless of where we look. We find evidence of former vast plains- a single planation surface. To form the mountains we see today large areas of this vast surface were uplifted to form plateaus then parts of the newly raised plateaus were eroded to form mountains.

Not only that but the uplift was global, simultaneous and recent Cliff Ollier concludes: ‘…the conclusion presented here suggests that at least the latest uplift was roughly synchronous over a large area of the world. We are seeing the results of a distinct and remarkably young mountain building period. This is a deviation from strict uniformitarianism…Uplift occurred over a relatively short and distinct time. Some unknown process created mountains after a period with little or no significant uplift. This is a deviation from uniformitarianism…The same rapid uplift occurs in areas where hypotheses such as mantle plumes are not appropriate. We do not yet know what causes this short, sharp period of uplift, but we can exclude naive mountain-building hypotheses that are on the wrong time scale.’ (my emphasis)(2)

This incredible global phenomenon was unique nothing like it in Earth history had happened before or since. Cliff Ollier is no catastrophist catastrophic processes are not considered, so despite the evidence and unable to deviate from uniformitarianism, in the final analysis mountain building remains mysterious: ‘We do not yet know what causes this short, sharp period of uplift…’ it is due to: ‘Some unknown process…’ I propose that the ‘unknown process’ was an electrical event during the final stages of a global cataclysm one that began with subsidence on a massive scale.

Berthault’s Hypothesis

Guy Berthault has suggested that the continental sedimentary rock record resulted from a series of marine transgressions and regressions brought about by a shift in the rotational axis of the Earth; the shift in the rotational axis being due to ‘mountain orogenesis’ which in turn was due to ‘periodic mantle plumes’. (4)Berthault’s research on how sedimentary layers form is exemplary but I have to respectfully disagree with his hypothesis linking it to mountain formation. As we have already seen mountain formation occurred in a single synchronous global pulse, therefore, it could not be due to ‘periodic mantle plumes’. However, I believe Berthault is correct in one aspect- continental surfaces did suffer massive marine transgressions and regressions- but this was prior to mountain formation not because of it. This is why we find limestone and fossilised sea creatures at the summit of Mount Everest- a massive marine incursion had previously deposited them on a relatively flat surface prior to the uplift event.

The marine incursion event must have occurred during a time of global upheaval, this would imply mountain formation too was associated with this period, uplifted sedimentary layers suggest that mountain formation occurred during the final stages of the cataclysm but how and why?

Johnson and Anderson a Synthesis

In the paper ‘Massive Solar Eruptions and their contribution to the causes of Tectonic Uplift’ (5)- Robert Johnson demonstrates that massive electric discharge currents flowing through the Earth’s surface following a massive coronal mass ejection (CME) on the Sun could offer just to kind of uplift mechanism required for the formation of mountains. Uplift would occur due to thermal expansion and/or phase change of the original rock as well as the in situ formation of granite. Indeed looking at Mount Everest again this is just what we find: ‘marine sediments lie atop sedimentary and igneous rocks which have been baked by high temperatures and pressures into crystalline metamorphic rocks. Many rocks around the base of Everest are unique granites containing unusual minerals such as tourmaline, garnet and mica.’(6) Robert Johnson has provided a mechanism of uplift which I am in broad agreement with, however, along with thermal expansion and phase change we can consider a third possibility. Assuming gravity to be an electrical phenomenon then any change in Earth’s gravity resulting from an exchange of electrical charge, would surely lead to a vertical rearrangement of crustal rocks, especially if their density had been altered during the discharge event?

Recall that: ‘Mountains are created by the vertical uplift of former plains’; following Cliff Ollier’s work, the uplift that occurred via the ‘Johnson Mechanism’ must have raised large areas of former plains to form plateaus. But mountains are not plateaus, what process shaped the iconic mountain form that surrounds many plateaus?Writing in the ‘Proceedings of the NPA’, Dr. Paul E. Anderson’s paper ‘Electric Scarring of the Earth’s Surface’ looks at geological features that exhibit characteristics which are typical of electric scarring events on a dielectric medium. (7, 8)

Paul Anderson uses fractal analysis to determine what process –fluvial or electrical- shaped the various landforms on the Earth, the main focus being canyons and riverbeds. This analysis is then compared to electrical discharge patterns recorded in laboratory experiments. In concluding he writes: ‘Just as water flows and collects in the tire tracks of a mud road, it is the author’s hypothesis that water on earth flowed into the remnants and the surfaces carved by electrical events in the recent past. Water flow does not appear to form structures with as many branches, particularly perpendicular branches, as do electrical events. While the mechanisms of discharge formation are still under study by those in the EU (Electric Universe) community, the current from the source must have been higher than it is today in the present auroras. The auroral process would have extended well beyond the current northern and southern locations, and once the atmosphere could not support the ionization it would break down in the form of electric discharges.’

The fractal signature of an electrical discharge is the Lichtenberg figure, (9) not only is this figure associated with canyons and riverbeds (10) it is also apparent in mountain ranges (11, 12). If the major canyons and riverbeds on Earth’s surface were carved out electrically then it is reasonable to assume that the iconic mountain form must have been also- possibly during the same electrical event.

One property of electric arcs is to preferentially strike raised surfaces, now, combining Johnson and Anderson we see that mountain formation was not only due to electrical uplift but also due to electrical erosion. In this image of the Tibetan Plateau -from the International Space Station- (13), we notice the uplifted plateau the rim of which has been eroded to form snow-capped mountain ranges.

This is the pattern we see the world over and now we have an explanation. During a period of global upheaval immense electric currents swept across and penetrated deep below the surface of the Earth. As immense blocks were raised from a former flat planation surface high points became a focus for electrical erosion. What strata escaped being metamorphosed were eroded, pulverised and scattered by intense electrical winds (something similar but on a vastly reduced scale still occurs on Mars today (14)).

Ashes and Dust

Large areas of the Earth’s strata and surface record what geologists perceive as ‘massive volcanic eruptions’ quite often these prehistoric eruptions dwarf any recorded eruption. For example, Dinosaur National Monument (Utah, USA) is part of the Morrison Formation which covers some 700,000 square miles. Part of the formation is: ‘dominated by silica-rich volcanic ash representing explosive volcanism on a colossal scale…A staggering quantity of volcanic materials, estimated at more than 4,000 cubic miles, occurs within the thin but widespread Brushy Basin Member in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. No volcano is known within the boundary of the Morrison deposit, no local lava flows are known within the Morrison boundary, and geologists place the nearest explosive volcanic source vents in southern California or Nevada. How these coarse volcanic materials in such colossal quantities were distributed on so wide a scale remains a mystery.’(15)

The Worzel Deep Sea Ash is another mystery. Following the discovery of the ash researchers noted: ‘The ash consists of colourless shards of volcanic glass with an index of refraction of 1.500 and varying in size from 0.07 to 0.2 mm. There is no particle size sorting. Most of the shards are in the form of curved, fluted, or crumpled films of glass. A minority are nearly equidimensional fragments of silky pumice. No crystalline minerals have been found. In all important respects it is similar to material which has been classified as volcanic ash in the deep-sea deposits of the world. On preliminary examination, the ash of the Worzel layer appears to be quite similar to the ash layer which occurs in a suite of cores from the Gulf of Mexico. Rex and Goldberg have found quartz particles of continental origin in abundance in Pacific sediments as much as 2,000 miles from the nearest continent…The ash is entirely unlike material described as meteoritic dust.’ (16)

The researchers concluded: ‘Apparently we require either a single very large volcanic explosion, or the simultaneous explosion of many volcanoes, or conceivably a cometary collision similar to that suggested by Urey as a "last resort type explanation" for the origin of tektites.’ In other words a global cataclysm is required to account for the ash. However, if we look at the chemical composition of the ash (17) we find it shares similar chemical properties with granite (18).

Loess covers about 10% of the Earth’s land surface and is according to Michael Oard: ‘…difficult to define, but it is generally considered to be wind-blown (Aeolian) silt. It is composed mostly of quartz grains, with minor portions of clay and sand often mixed with the silt. Loess is commonly intermixed vertically with ‘paleosols’, which are supposedly fossil soils that have been preserved in the geologic record or buried deeply enough that it is no longer subject to soil forming processes. Scientists previously believed the silt particles in loess were derived from ice abrasion, but they now believe that loess has both a glacial and non-glacial origin.

‘Loess covers much of the mid and high latitude continents, forming a thickening belt in Europe from the Atlantic coast east into Russia and the Ukraine in areas generally south of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet. It also covers a large portion of the Midwest of the United States, the lowlands of Alaska, southeast Washington and eastern Idaho and some 440,000 km2 of central China, where it is up to 300m thick. Millions of woolly mammoths and other Ice Age animals are mostly entombed in loess in non-glaciated areas of Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada. Wind blown material is common within the Ice Age portion of the Greenland ice cores.

‘Despite the large number of studies, there are many problems associated with loess from a uniformitarian view: ‘Few problems in Quaternary geology have raised so much controversy as loess’.’(19)

Whether it be ‘volcanic ash’, deep sea ash or loess the origin of this material is mysterious evoking massive eruptions of missing volcanoes or in the case of loess: ‘(1) hot deserts, (2) cold deserts, (3) drowned sources covered by late-glacial sea level rise and (4) glacial grinding.’ A more encompassing explanation would be that all this material is the by-product of the electrical erosion that occurred during the mountain forming period. Depending on exactly when the material was eroded determined its ultimate classification. For example, material eroded in the early stages may have been deposited whilst marine incursions were still ongoing- this material would have been incorporated into marine strata and interpreted as ‘volcanic’. During the latter stages when marine transgressions had subsided electrical dust storms would have scattered the material globally- eventually to settle on the ocean floor or entrap ‘Ice Age’ mammals.

Furthermore, marine sponge spicules have been identified in loess, we have already seen that the fossilised remains of sea creatures have been found atop Mount Everest- it is likely that the remains of sponges originated from the uplifted uppermost sedimentary strata which, as mentioned previous, was pulverised and scattered as an electrical discharge carved out a mountain.

Subsidence and Great Escarpments

Volcanoes aside, one mountain type that has not been considered so far are mountains found at passive margins. (20) As we have previously seen passive margins display evidence of wide-scale subsidence, why would we find mountains there?

Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain note that mountains on passive continental margins are: ‘generally ignored by plate tectonic theory…’ this is because: ‘the mountains are not as grand as Alpine mountains, and as generally perceived they did not fit any grand theory.’(21)

The authors note: ‘Many continents exhibit spectacular landforms along their passive margins – Great Escarpments. These are landforms on the grand scale, thousands of kilometres long, and often up to 1000 metres high.’ They go on to document Great Escarpments found on Australia, Africa, India, Brazil, North America, Scandinavia, Greenland and Antarctica. The authors note that in general: ‘many passive margins date back long before the Late Miocene to Pleistocene age of many other mountains.’ Considering the Appalachian Mountains as an example the authors write: ‘In general the seaward side sank while the land side rose, culminating in the Appalachian Highlands or Plateau.’ The authors finally consider a number of possible causes of these features, interestingly one possibility considered is; ‘Subsidence of basins on each side of an originally high continental margin.’

These mountains are considered to be ‘old’, Plate Tectonic interpretations push their formation into the distant past, tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. But, these features are closely linked with subsidence as I have previously suggested. They are considered old because large scale subsidence took place before the main period of uplift; Great Escarpments are relics of that subsidence.

Conclusion

Mountains formed late in Earth history during a ‘recent’ period of global upheaval. ‘Old’ mountains and escarpments formed during an early phase due to the subsidence of surrounding crustal areas. In the latter phase energy was more focussed and led not only to uplift but erosion in areas of the continental surface that did not suffer subsidence. Viewed in this light, mountains are the result of a catastrophic vertical rearrangement of the Earth’s surface, not the result of slowly moving tectonic plates.

Grey Clould,Thank you for your comments.I'm highly sceptical of both Plate and Expansion Tectonics (eg. see my reply here: http://forum.sis-group.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39) as you can probably tell.In my view we need a new tectonic model, one more in line with Cuvier and Velikovsky's ideas and based on our increased knowledge of both the solar system and the Earth- this is what I have tried to do.

RM, Just read your SIS forum post and the OP and I agree with the scepticism regarding the Pangea palaver.

The other thing that is wheeled out in support of the S America - Africa 'fit' is the fauna and flora. But for every specie that is similar there are lots more that are not. My own example is the tapir which is found only in S America and SE Asia.

On a side note - the SIS forum is not exactly what I would call thriving.

If I have the least bit of knowledge I will follow the great Way alone and fear nothing but being sidetracked. The great Way is simple but people delight in complexity.Tao Te Ching, 53.

If Mercury is still adjusting to its solar environment does it show any signs of activity today? Images from the MESSENGER spacecraft revealed what planetary geologists call ‘hollows’ on the surface and attributed their formation to ‘something sublimating’.

Yes, In Mercury there is definetly "something Sublimating"; Only need to calculate the thermodynamics, and this becomes obvious; The Basalt is Sublimating in a rate which might easily even cause the excentricity. I've calculated it here; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... modynamics

What drives the Earth’s magnetic field?

Sun. Even the Fluctuations in Earth rotation is too big, that the changes of energy could be explained any otherway than through the influence of sun. I've calculated this, and some of the story is written open here; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... rgy-change(See also my own, -non mainstream- answer

A steady flow of electricity requires constant potential differences. How are such potential differences produced and maintained in this hypothetical core?

This "steady flow" is an observed fact, you can find it ie from Feynman Lectures "Electricity in Atmosphere"; http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.htmlFigure 9-5Give's a further hint about the source of this electricty, just look where the sun is located at 7:00 p.m. London time

However, it has been suggested that if terrestrial bodies are formed in an electric discharge then the bodies may very well be hollow. (13)

Interesting Idea. But what is meant with hollow? The inside of the earth is not a vacuum, this is impossible with any model of gravitation. It might be gaseous/liguid, but could such a structure be named "hollow"?

At the Kola hole the Soviet Minister of Geology stated, ‘with increasing depth in the Kola hole, the expected increase in rock densities was therefore not recorded. Neither was any increase in the speed of seismic waves nor any other changes in the physical properties of the rocks detected. Thus the traditional idea that geological data obtained from the surface can be directly correlated with geological materials in the deep crust must be re-examined.

This is important observation, and should be definetly used in all astrophysics. The matter is not compressible in a way like told in the ferry-tales from "neutron Stars" and "black holes".

Deep drilling also revealed the presence of hydrogen, helium, methane, and other gases.

Which succests that we should revisite our Matter-creation theories. (Nucleosynthesis)

Temperatures recorded in super-deep boreholes came as a surprise. Temperature was found to increase with depth far more rapidly than predicted. In the Kola borehole, at 32,810 feet (6.2 miles) deep the temperature was 180°C not the expected 100°C. Overall, the rate of temperature increase rose from 11° to 24°per 3,281 feet, down to a depth of nearly 22,970 feet (4.3 miles) and then started to decline. (17)

Drilling in these depths are highly energy intensive. It might thus be that the drilling has caused the Temperature change. I propose that the temperatures in these holes are measured again.

I see two quite circular "poles" in this picture, where the Land rises a lot. You look closer to Canada. There is a rising Pole (+18mm) and sinking pole (-6 mm) in only 3000 km distance. Galvanic corrosion, Ion migration from Cathode to Anode? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion

I mean if you just calculate 18 mm / Year, during the Last 10 000 Years since last Ice age, And such a rebound should even be exponential, meaning that the rise should have been some 200 mm / year for the first 1000 Years...But just 18 mm/year x 10 000 year does 180 0000 mm = 180 m The land hight in that region is about 200m, Meaning it should have been mostly seabed. This seems nonsense to me.

Rings are larger and twice as abundant above Phanerozoic than Precambrian bedrocks. Rings are also six times more likely to occur over glaciomarine and marine deposits, rather than organic, glaciolacustrine and till deposits. Rings are least likely to occur over fluvial, glaciofluvial and bedrock deposits, although they sometimes do.-Ontario Geological Survey

No other terrestrial planet or natural satellite displays evidence that would be expected to be associated with Plate Tectonics.

JouniJokela wrote:Yes, In Mercury there is definetly "something Sublimating"; Only need to calculate the thermodynamics, and this becomes obvious; The Basalt is Sublimating in a rate which might easily even cause the excentricity. I've calculated it here; http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... modynamics

JouniJokela wrote:This "steady flow" is an observed fact, you can find it ie from Feynman Lectures "Electricity in Atmosphere"; http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.htmlFigure 9-5Give's a further hint about the source of this electricty, just look where the sun is located at 7:00 p.m. London time

What is not at question here is the Earth’s electrical nature but how does the magnetic field arise? I agree with Velikovsky and Juergens, Earth’s magnetic field arises due to a charge differential between the Earth and its environment. Not to some hidden dynamo.

JouniJokela wrote:Interesting Idea. But what is meant with hollow? The inside of the earth is not a vacuum, this is impossible with any model of gravitation. It might be gaseous/liguid, but could such a structure be named "hollow"?

Jan Lamprecht has developed a hollow Earth model that matches seismic data. Both Earth and the Moon ‘ring like bells’ after powerful quakes and quake depth distribution is similar on both bodies…‘When one takes a look at the data showing the speed with which seismic waves travel, one discovers an interesting thing: Waves which pass through the Core (those which are supposed to be going in a straight line) actually slow down!’ Lamprecht’s model is gravitationally consistent all that is assumed is that a change in density occurs at a given depth. Results from the Kola Superdeep Borehole cast doubts on our understanding of Earth’s density. See: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/15mar_moonquakes.htmlCompare with: http://geology.about.com/od/historicearthquakes/a/aasumatra.htm(Again we see evidence that vertical tectonics dominates).Current ideas of the make-up of the Earth’s interior are based on the accretion model of Earth’s formation obviously such models would exclude a hollow. Electrical formation ideas offer the possibility that this may not be the case. Such a cavity may well serve as a reservoir for hydrocarbons and ‘primordial Helium’.

JouniJokela wrote:This is important observation, and should be definetly used in all astrophysics. The matter is not compressible in a way like told in the ferry-tales from "neutron Stars" and "black holes".

And our models of the Earth’s interior.

JouniJokela wrote:Drilling in these depths are highly energy intensive. It might thus be that the drilling has caused the Temperature change. I propose that the temperatures in these holes are measured again.

What we find from the results of deep drilling is that what was expected to be found before drilling started- based on seismic studies- was not found at all. At the Kola Superdeep Borehole when the Conrad Discontinuity was penetrated no change in rock type, faults or physical boundary was found. This begs the question; just what are seismic structures?

In recent decades seismic studies of the core have revealed some anomalies which led to suggestions that: the core is prolate spheriodal shaped, the core is crystalline, the core is tilted and the core is a crystal within a crystal. And the mainstream criticise Electric Universe concepts!

What would an Electric Universe explanation for these seismic observations look like?

It has been found that seismic waves travelling along the Earth’s rotational axis are not parallel to that axis but diverge by 12.5 degrees. Seismic waves travelling along this axis travel faster than those travelling perpendicular to it.

The alignment of this ‘seismic axis’ is interesting; if Earth is a secondary electrode in the discharge powering the Sun, we would expect current from the Sun, to arrive at the Earth perpendicular to the plane of the Sun’s equator. This is not dissimilar to what we find with the 'seismic axis'.

(I have suggested elsewhere that a similar phenomenon is taking place at Uranus, accounting for the planet’s offset magnetic field.)

Could it be that seismic structures rather than the hypothesised different physical boundaries are actually changes in electrical conditions or double layers within the Earth? Seismic waves travelling along the ‘seismic axis’ would then be mapping internal current flow. Tradition core, mantle and crust boundaries along with numerous other discontinuities and zones would simply be electrical ‘layers’. Periodic breakdown in such layers lead, not only to deep earthquakes, but all manner of tectonic activity.

Robertus Maximus wrote:The Earth however does have a substantial atmosphere and magnetic field, is far more geologically active and has yet to ‘acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma’.

So Earth will inevitably ‘acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma’ then, right? What can we expect to change when this happens? Is it a good thing or a bad thing for us? I expect to be bombarded by high energy particles a lot more when we no longer have a plasma double layer shielding us. Will the orbit remain the same? As of now the Earth is apparently moving away from the Sun.

RM,Interesting conjectures throughout the OP articles.However, I'm failing to see how these various terrestrial structures would be unique to Earth based on the premise of an electrified plasma environment... why not the other planets and moons as well, don't they have plasma environments and alleged electrical discharge features? As for me, I'm still a rapid continental drift adherent. The current Plate Tectonics model would have come into place after the seafloor spreading came to a halt.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Robertus Maximus wrote:The Earth however does have a substantial atmosphere and magnetic field, is far more geologically active and has yet to ‘acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma’.

So Earth will inevitably ‘acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma’ then, right? What can we expect to change when this happens? Is it a good thing or a bad thing for us? I expect to be bombarded by high energy particles a lot more when we no longer have a plasma double layer shielding us. Will the orbit remain the same? As of now the Earth is apparently moving away from the Sun.

What I have hinted at in this thread are two possibilities. Firstly, either the Earth’s current orbit is ‘recent’ or secondly, the Earth’s environment is ‘recent’. As a consequence of this the Earth is currently electrically and geologically active.

If we look at the Moon, for example, this is not the case ‘the Moon--seems to have an electric potential equal to that of its environment, but from this we can only conclude that the environment itself has a potential as high as that of the Moon.’

The fossil record demonstrates that the maximum size limit for terrestrial life forms in the past was greater than that of today. This suggests that Earth’s surface gravity was lower than that of today. Wal Thornhill has proposed a relationship between a planets’ mass and orbital radius see: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-electric-clockwork-solar-system/

From Wal Thornhill’s proposal we see that the increase in the Earth’s orbital radius (as you pointed out) is due to the Earth’s continuing adjustment to its environment. As part of this adjustment Earth is accepting more charge the rotation rate is slowing and the planet’s polarisation increasing accompanied with an increase in ‘mass’ and surface gravity.

If we look at the accepted densities of Saturn and Mercury, for example, we find anomalous values- Saturn could float in suitably large bathtub of water, Mercury has an enormous iron core we are told. In an electrical solar system rather than anomalous densities is it not more reasonable to assume that the current orbits or electrical environments of Saturn and Mercury, like the Earth, are ‘recent’ and both planets are continuing to adjust?

Just to be clear, I do not subscribe to the accepted view of the geologic column. I believe that the Phanerozoic rock record records a global cataclysm. The fossils contained therein are not a record of millions of years of evolution but of life forms that perished during that time. Given the diversity of extinct and extant life in my view the pre-cataclysmic Earth was certainly different than what we see today.

Regarding Earth’s magnetospheric ‘shield’, if the Earths’ electrical condition is ‘recent’ then it would suggest that the ‘shield’ is recent too. Is this good or bad? I don’t know. Just to go slightly off track for a moment, one possibility I will suggest is this; Darwin’s theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is incomplete on Earth today we see evidence of selection, for example, various traits selected by dog breeders, in nature we see colour changes of the peppered moth, in humans- how the immune system functions, where evolutionists perform a semantic sleight-of-hand is when they use ‘evolution’ to mean speciation, the creation of new species of which we have no examples occurring today.

The inability of experimenters to mutate fruit flies into new species may be telling us Earth’s environment today is a recent and radically different one. Is it possible species arose under different ‘shieldless’ electrical environmental conditions? If so, then our assumptions and hypotheses of how life began and new species arose have been misguided from the start, as they are largely formed on retrodictions based on the environment we see on Earth today, not the environment that existed pre-cataclysm.